Greater sensitivity to nonaccidental than metric changes in the relations between simple shapes in the lateral occipital cortex

NeuroImage

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 1818-1826

  Kim, Jiye G ^a   Biederman, Irving ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

FMRI; Lateral occipital cortex; Nonaccidental properties; Object recognition; Object relations; Spatial relations

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BOLD SIGNAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FUSIFORM GYRUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; MALE; MIDDLE TEMPORAL GYRUS; NEUROIMAGING; NORMAL HUMAN; OBJECT RELATION; OCCIPITAL CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEPTIVE FIELD; TEMPORAL CORTEX; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOTION PERCEPTION; OCCIPITAL LOBE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; VISUAL CORTEX; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84866895474     PISSN: 10538119     EISSN: 10959572     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.08.066     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Amir O., Biederman I., Hayworth K.J. Sensitivity to nonaccidental properties across various shape dimensions. Vis. Res. 2012, 62:35-43.
2. Behrmann M., Peterson M.A., Moscovitch M., Suzuki S. Independent representation of parts and the relations between them: evidence from integrative agnosia. J. Exp. Psych. 2006, 32:1169-1184.
3. Biederman I. On the semantics of a glance at a scene. Perceptual Organization 1981, 213-263. M. Kubovy, J.R. Pomerantz (Eds.).
4. Biederman I., Bar M. One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vis. Res. 1999, 39:2885-2899.
5. Biederman I., Gerhardstein P.C. Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for 3D viewpoint invariance. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1993, 19:1162-1182.
6. Biederman I., Yue X., Davidoff J. Representation of shape in individuals from a culture with minimal exposure to regular, simple artifacts. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20:1437-1442.
7. De Valois R.L., Yund E.W., Hepler N. The orientation and direction selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex. Vis. Res. 1982, 22:531-544.
8. Epstein W., Rock I., Zuckerman C.B. Meaning and familiarity in associative learning. Psychol. Monog. Gen. Appl. 1960, 74:1-22.
9. Furmanski C.S., Engle S.A. An oblique effect in human primary visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2000, 3:535-536.
10. Green C., Hummel J.E. Familiar interacting object pairs are perceptually grouped. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2006, 32:1107-1119.
11. Hayworth K., Biederman I. Neural evidence for intermediate representations in object recognition. Vis.Res. 2006, 46:4024-4031.
12. Hayworth K., Lescroart M., Biederman I. Neural encoding of relative positions. J. Exp. Psych. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2011, 37:1032-1050.
13. Kayaert G., Wagemans J. Infants and toddlers show enlarged visual sensitivity to nonaccidental compared with metric shape changes. Perception 2010, 1:149-158.
14. Kayaert G., Biederman I., Vogels R. Shape tuning in macaque inferior temporal cortex. J. Neurosci. 2003, 23:3016-3027.
15. Kim J.G., Biederman I. Where do objects become scenes?. Cereb. Cortex 2011, 21:1738-1746.
16. Kim J.G., Biederman I., Lescroart M.D., Hayworth K.J. Adaptation to objects in the lateral occipital complex (LOC): shape or semantics?. Vis. Res. 2009, 49:2297-2305.
17. Kim J.G., Biederman I., Juan C.H. The benefit of object interactions arises in the lateral occipital cortex independent of attentional modulation from the intraparietal sulcus: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. J. Neurosci. 2011, 31:8320-8324.
18. Kourtzi Z., Kanwisher N. Cortical regions involved in perceiving object shape. J. Neurosci. 2000, 20:3310-3318.
19. Kourtzi Z., Kanwisher N. Representation of perceived object shape by the human lateral occipital complex. Science 2001, 293:1506-1509.
20. Lades M., Vorbruggen J.C., Buhmann J., Lange J., von der Malsburg C., Wurtz R.P., Konen W. Distortion invariant object recognition in the dynamic link architecture. IEEE Trans. Comp. 1993, 42:300-311.
21. Lazareva O.F., Wasserman E.A., Biederman I. Pigeons and humans are more sensitive to nonaccidental than to metric changes in visual objects. Beh. Process. 2008, 77:199-209.
22. Lescroart M.D., Biederman I. Cortical representation of medial axis structure. Cereb. Cortex 2012, 10.1093/cercor/bhs046.
23. Leventhal A.G., Hirsch H.V.B. Effects of early experience upon orientation sensitivity and binocularity of neurons in visual cortex of cats. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 1977, 74:1272-1276.
24. Levitt J.B., Kiper D.C., Movshon J.A. Receptive fields and functional architecture of macaque V2. J. Neurophys 1994, 71:2517-2542.
25. Li B., Peterson M.R., Freeman R.D. Oblique effect: a neural basis in the visual cortex. J. Neurophys. 2003, 90:204-217.
26. Lowe D. Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition 1985, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
27. Mansfield R.J.W. Neural basis of orientation perception in primate vision. Science 1974, 186:1133-1135.
28. Mansfield R.J.W., Ronner S.F. Orientation anisotropy in monkey visual cortex. Brain Res. 1978, 149:229-234.
29. Motter B.C. Central V4 receptive fields are scaled by the V1 cortical magnification and correspond to a constant-sized sampling of the V1 surface. J. Neurosci. 2009, 29:5749-5757.
30. Mutch J., Lowe D.G. Object class recognition and localization using sparse features with limited receptive fields. Inter. J. Comput. Vis. 2008, 80:45-57.
31. Orban G.A., Kennedy H. Receptive field organization in areas 17 and 18 of the cat. Arch. Int. Physiol. Biochim. 1979, 87:766-767.
32. Orban G.A., Kennedy H. The influence of eccentricity on receptive field types and orientation selectivity in areas 17 and 19 of the cat. Brain Res. 1981, 208:203-208.
33. Riesenhuber M., Poggio T. Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 1999, 2:1019-1025.
34. Serre T., Wolf L., Poggio T. Object recognition with features inspired by visual cortex. IEEE Comp. Vis. Pat. Recog. 2005, 2:994-1000.
35. Talairach J., Tournoux P. Co-planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain 1988, Thieme, Stuttgart.
36. Tanaka M., Weber H., Creutzfeldt O.D. Visual properties and spatial distribution of neurones in the visual association area on the prelunate gyrus of the awake monkey. Exp. Brain Res. 1986, 65:11-37.
37. Tootell R.B.H., Reppas J.B., Dale A.M., Look R.B., Sereno M.I., Malach R., Brady T.J., Rosen B.R. Visual motion after effect in human cortical area MT revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nature 1995, 11:139-141.
38. Vogels R., Biederman I., Bar M., Lorincz A. Inferior temporal neurons show greater sensitivity to nonaccidental than to metric shape differences. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2001, 13:444-453.
39. Watson A.B., Pelli D.G. QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percep. & Psychophys. 1983, 33:113-120.
40. Xu X., Biederman I. Loci of the release from fMRI adaptation for changes in facial expression, identity, and viewpoint. J. Vis. 2010, 36:1-13.
41. Yue X., Biederman I., Mangini M.C., von der Malsburg C., Amir O. Predicting the psychophysical similarity of faces and non-face complex shapes by image-based measures. Vis. Research 2012, 55:41-46.